The Fifth Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party

April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907

Speech on the Attitude Towards Bourgeois PartiesMay 12 (25)

Thequestion of our attitude to the bourgeois parties is the nub of the
differences in matters of principle that have long divided Russian
Social-Democracy into two camps. Even before the first major successes of the
revolution, or even before the revolution—if it is permissible to express
oneself in this way about the first half of 1905— two distinct points of
view on this question already existed. The disputes were over the appraisal of
the bourgeois revolution in Russia. The two trends in the Social-Democracy
agreed that this revolution was a bourgeois revolution. But they parted company
in their understanding of this category, and in their appraisal of the practical
and political conclusions to be drawn from it. One wing of the
Social-Democracy—the Mensheviks—interpreted this concept to mean
that the bourgeoisie was the motive force in the bourgeois revolution, and that
the proletariat could occupy only the position of the “extreme opposition”.
The proletariat could not undertake the task of conducting the revolution
independently or of leading it. These differences of opinion stood out in
particularly high relief during the disputes on the question of a provisional
government (to be more exact, whether the Social-Democrats should participate in
a provisional government)—disputes which raged in 1905. The Mensheviks
denied that the Social-Democrats could be permitted to participate in a
provisional revolutionary government, primarily because they considered the
bourgeoisie the motive force or leader in thebourgeois revolution. This view found most clear expression in the resolution of
the Caucasian Mensheviks

(1905),[1]approved by the newIskra. This resolution state.d
forth right that Social-Democratic participation in a provisional
government might frighten the bourgeoisie away, and therebyreduce the
scope of the revolution. We have here a clear admission that the
proletariat cannot and should not go further than the bourgeoisie in the
bourgeois revolution.

TheBolsheviks held the opposite view. They maintained unequivocally that in its
social and economic content our revolution was a bourgeois revolution. This
means that the aims of the revolution that is now taking place in Russia do not
exceed the bounds of bourgeois society. Even the fullest possible victory of the
present revolution— in other words, the achievement of the most democratic
republic possible, and the confiscation of all landed estates by the
peasantry—would not in any way affect the foundations of the bourgeois
social system. Private ownership of the means of production (or private farming
on the land, irrespective of its juridical owner) and commodity economy will
remain. The contradictions of capitalist society—and the most important of
them is the contradiction between wage-labour and capital—will not only
remain, but become even more acute and profound, developing in a more extensive
and purer form.

Allthis should be absolutely beyond doubt to any Marxist. But from this it
does not at all follow that the bourgeoisie is the motive force or leader in
the revolution. Such a conclusion would be a vulgarisation of Marxism, would be
a failure to understand the class struggle between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. The fact of the matter is that our revolution is taking place at a
time when the proletariat has already begun to recognise itself as
distinct class and to unite in an independent, class organisation. Under such
circumstances the proletariat makes use of all the achievements of democracy,
makes use of every step towards freedom, to strengthen its class organisationagainstthe bourgeoisie. Hence the inevitable endeavour of the
bourgeoisie to smooth off the sharp corners of the revolution, not to allow it
to reach its culmination, not togive the proletariat the opportunity of carrying on its class struggle
    unhampered. The antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat
    forces the bourgeoisie to strive to preserve certain instruments and
    institutions of the old regime in order to use themagainstthe
    proletariat.

Atthe very best, therefore, the bourgeoisie, in the period of greatest
revolutionary upsurge, still constitutes an element that wavers between
revolution and reaction (and does not do so fortuitously, but of necessity, by
force of its economic interests). Hence the bourgeoisie cannot be the leader in
our revolution.

Themajor distinguishing feature of this revolution is the acuteness of the
agrarian question. It is much more acute in Russia than in any other country in
similar conditions. The so-called peasant reform of 1861 was carried out so
inconsistently and so undemocratically that the principal foundations of feudal
landlord domination remained unshaken. For this reason, the agrarian question,
that is, the struggle of the peasants against the landowners for the land,
proved one of the touchstones of the present revolution. This struggle for the
land inevitably forces enormous masses of the peasantry into the democratic
revolution, for only democracy can give them land by giving them supremacy in
the state. The victory of the peasantry presupposes the complete destruction of
landlordism.

Suchan alignment of social forces inevitably leads to the conclusion that the
bourgeoisie can be neither the motive force nor the leader in the
revolution. Only the proletariat is capable of consummating the revolution, that
is, of achieving a complete victory. But this victory can be achieved only
provided the proletariat succeeds in getting a large section of the peasantry to
follow its lead. The victory of the present revolution in Russia is possible
only as the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the
peasantry.

Thecorrectness of this presentation of the question, which dates back to the
beginning of 1905—I am referring to the Third Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. in the spring of 1905— found full confirmation in events at all
the most important stages of the Russian revolution. Our theoretical conclusions
were confirmed in practice in the course of the revolutionarystruggle. In October 1905, at the very height of the revolution, the
proletariat was at the head, the bourgeoisie wavered and vacillated, and the
peasantry wrecked the landed estates. In all the embryonic organs of
revolutionary power (the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, the Soviets of Peasants’
and
Soldiers’ Deputies, etc.) representatives of the proletariat were the main
participants, followed by the most advanced of the insurgent peasantry. At the
time of the First Duma, the peasants immediately formed a democratic
“Trudovik” group, which was more to the Left, in other words, more
revolutionary, than the liberals—the Cadets. In the elections to the
Second Duma, the peasants defeated the liberals outright. The proletariat
marched ahead, the peasantry more or less resolutely following it against the
autocracy and against the vacillating liberals.

Ishall now pass to the draft resolutions we have before us. The difference in
points of view I have described is fully reflected in the antithesis between the
Bolshevik and Menshevik resolutions. The Bolshevik draft is based on a
definition of theclasscontent of the principaltypesof
bourgeois parties. We drew up our resolution in the same way for the Unity
Congress in Stockholm. There we noted three principal types of bourgeois
parties: the Octobrists, the liberals and the peasant democrats (at that time
they were not yet fully delineated, and the word “Trudovik” did not
exist in the Russian political vocabulary). Our resolution of today retains that
same structure. It is simply a modification of the Stockholm resolution. The
course of events has confirmed its basic postulates to such an extent that only
very small changes were required for due consideration to be paid to experience
acquired in the First and Second Dumas.

TheMenshevik resolution for the Unity Congress gave no analysis whatever either
of types of parties or their class content. The resolution states helplessly
that “bourgeois-democratic parties are only just forming in Russia and
therefore have not yet had the time to acquire the character of stable
parties”, and that “at the present historical moment in Russia
there are no parties in existence that could simultaneously blend within
themselves a consistent democracy and a revolutionary character”. Is this
not a helpless declaration? Is this not a deviation from Marxisttasks? Outside the ranks of the proletariat there will never be absolute
      stability of parties or fully “consistent” democracy. It is,
      however, our duty to lay bare the class roots of all parties that appear
      on the historical scene. And our resolution shows that this is something
      quite feasible. The three types of parties outlined in this resolution
      have proved sufficiently “stable” throughout a whole year of
      revolution, as I have already shown by the example of the First and Second
      Dumas.

Whathasproved unstable is the views of the Mensheviks. Their present
resolution is a tremendous step backward in comparison with their draft of last
year. Let us examine this resolution, which was published inNarodnaya
Duma, No. 12 (March 24, 1907). The preamble to this resolution points first
to a “number of tasks common” to the proletariat and to bourgeois
democracy; secondly, it says that the proletariat must “combine its
activities with those of other social classes and groups”; thirdly, it
says that in a country where the peasantry predominates and urban democracy is
weak, the proletariat “by its own movement impels forward”...

“the entire bourgeois democracy of the country”; fourthly,
“that the democratic movement of the country has not yet found its
ultimate expression in the present grouping of bourgeois parties”, which
reflects the “realism” and unpreparedness to fight on the part of
the urban bourgeoisie at one extreme, and at the other, peasant “illusions
of petty-bourgeois revolutionism and agrarian utopias”. Such is the
preamble. Now let us look at the conclusions; the first conclusion is that,
while pursuing an independent policy, the proletariat must fight both against
the opportunism and constitutional illusions of the one, and the revolutionary
illusions and reactionary economic projects of the other. The second conclusion
is that it is necessary to “combine our activities with the activities of
the other parties”.

Aresolution like this does not answer any one of the questions that every
Marxist is obliged to ask himself, if he wants to define the attitude of the
workers’ party to the bourgeois parties. What are these general questions? First
of all, it is necessary to define the class nature of the parties. Then it is
necessary to make clear to oneself the basic alignment of the various classes
in the present revolution in general,that is, in what relation the interests of these classes stand to the
continuation or development of the revolution. Further, it is necessary to pass
over from classes in general to the present-day role of the various parties, or
various groups of parties. Finally, it is necessary to furnish practical
directives concerning the policy of the workers’ party on this question.

Thereis nothing of this in the Menshevik resolution. It is simply an evasion of
these questions, evasion by means of general phrase-mongering about
“combining” the policy of the proletariat with the policy of the
bourgeoisie. Not a word is said about how to “combine”, and with
precisely which bourgeois-democratic parties. This is a resolution about parties,
but without parties. This is a resolution to define our attitude, which does
nothing to define our attitude towards the various parties. It is impossible to
take such a resolution as a guide, for it provides the greatest freedom to
“combine” anything you like and in any way you like. Such a
resolution does not restrict anyone; it is a most “liberal”
resolution in the fullest sense of that word. It can be interpreted backwards
and forwards. But of Marxism— not a grain. The fundamental propositions of
Marxism have been so thoroughly forgotten here that any Left Cadet could have
subscribed to such a resolution. Take its main points— “tasks in
common” for the proletariat and bourgeois democracy—is that not the
very thing the entire liberal press is vociferating about?... The need to
“combine”—the very thing the Cadets are demanding.... The struggle
against opportunism on the Right and revolutionism on the Left— but that
is the pet slogan of the Left Cadets, who say they want to sit between the
Trudoviks and bourgeois liberals! This is not the position of a workers’ party
distinct from and independent of bourgeois democracy; it is the position of a
liberal who wants to occupy the “centre”in the midstof
the bourgeois democrats.

Letus examine the gist of the Mensheviks’ proposition:

by its own movement the proletariat “impels forward” “the
entire bourgeois democracy of the country”. Is this true? Absolutely
not. Just recall the major events in our revolution. Take the Bulygin Duma. In
reply to the tsar’s appeal to take the legal path, to adopt his, the
tsar’s, conditionsfor convening the first popular representative body, the proletariat answered
    with a resolute refusal. The proletariat called on the people to wipe out
    this institution, to prevent its birth. The proletariat called on all the
    revolutionary classes to fight for better conditions for the convocation
    of a popular representative body. This in no way ruled out the question of
    utilising even bad institutions if they actually came into being despite
    all our efforts. This was a fightagainstallowing the
    implementation of worse conditions for convening a popular representative
    body. In appraising the boycott, the logical and historical mistake is often
    made of confusing the fighton the basisof the given institution,
    with the fightagainstthe establishment of that institution.

Whatreply did the liberal bourgeoisie make to the proletariat’s appeal?
It replied with a general outcry against the boycott. It invited us to the
Bulygin Duma. The liberal professors urged the students to go on with their
studies, instead of organising strikes. In reply to the proletariat’s
appeal to fight, the bourgeoisie answered by fighting against the
proletariat. As far back as that, the antagonism between these classes, even in
a democratic revolution, manifested itself fully and definitely. The bourgeoisie
wanted to narrow the scope of the proletariat’s struggle, to prevent it
going beyond the bounds of the convocation of the Bulygin Duma.

ProfessorVinogradov, the shining light of liberal science, wrote just at that
time: “It would be the good fortune of Russia if our revolution proceeded
along the road of 1848-49, and its misfortune if it proceeded along the road
taken by the revolution of 1789-93.” What this “democrat”
called good. fortune was the road of an unconsummated revolution, the road of a
defeated uprising! If our revolution were to deal as ruthlessly with its enemies
as the French revolution did in 1793, then, according to this
“liberal”, it would be necessary to call upon the Prussian drill
sergeant to re-establish law and order. The Mensheviks say that our bourgeoisie
are “unprepared to fight”. Actually, however, the bourgeoisie werepreparedto fight, prepared to fightagainstthe proletariat,
to fight against the “excessive” victories of the revolution.

Toproceed. Take October to December 1905. There is no need to prove that during
this period of the high tide of our revolution, the bourgeoisie displayed
“preparednessto fight” against the proletariat. This was fully acknowledged by the
Menshevik press of that day. The bourgeoisie, including the Cadets, tried in
every way to denigrate the revolution, to picture it as blind and savage
anarchy. The bourgeoisie not only failed to support the organs of insurrection
set up by the people—all the various Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, Soviets
of Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, etc.—but it feared these
institutions and fought against them. Call to mind Struve, who termed these
institutions a degrading spectacle. In them the bourgeoisie saw a revolution
that had gone too far ahead. The liberal bourgeoisie wanted to divert the energy
of the popular revolutionary struggle into the narrow channel of
police-controlled constitutional reaction.

Thereis no need to dwell at length on the behaviour of the liberals in the
First and the Second Dumas. Even the Mensheviks acknowledged that,, in the First
Duma, the Cadetshinderedthe revolutionary policy of the
Social-Democrats and, to some extent, of the Trudoviks, that they hampered their
activity. And in the Second Duma the Cadets openly joined up with the Black
Hundreds, gave outright support to the government.

Tosay at present that the movement of the proletariat “impels the entire
bourgeois democracy of the country forward” means scorning facts. To
maintain silence at the present time about the counter-revolutionary nature of
our bourgeoisie means departing entirely from the Marxist point of view, means
completely forgetting the viewpoint of the class struggle.

Intheir resolution, the Mensheviks speak of the “realism” of the
urban bourgeois classes. Strange terminology this, which betrays them, against
their will. We are accustomed to seeing a special meaning attached to the word
realism, among the Right-wing Social-Democrats. For instance, Plekhanov’sSovremennaya Zhizncontrasted the “realism” of the Right
Social-Democrats with the “revolutionary romanticism” of the Left
Social-Democrats. What then does the Menshevik resolution have in view when it
speaks of realism? It appears that the resolution praises the bourgeoisie for
its moderation and punctiliousness!

Thesearguments of the Mensheviks about the “realism” of the
bourgeoisie, about its “unpreparedness” to fight—taken in conjunction with the open declaration of their tactical platform on
      the “one-sided hostility” of the Social-Democrats towards
      the liberals—speak of one thing, and of one thing only. In point of
      fact, it all means that the independent policy of the workers’ party is
      replaced by a policy of dependence on the liberal bourgeoisie. And this,
      the substance of Menshevism, is not something that we have invented or
      have drawn solely from their theoretical arguments—it has
      manifested itself in all the major steps of their policy throughout the
      past year. Take the “responsible ministry”, blocs with the
      Cadets, voting for Golovin, etc. This is what has actually constituted the
      policy of dependence on the liberals.

Andwhat do the Mensheviks say about peasant democracy? The resolution puts the
“realism” of the bourgeoisie and the “agrarian utopias”
of the peasantry on a par, off setting the one by the other as being of equal
significance or at any rate wholly analogous. We must fight, say the Mensheviks,
equally against the opportunism of the bourgeoisie and against the utopianism,
the “petty-bourgeois revolutionism”, of the peasantry. This is
typical of the Menshevik line of reasoning. And it is worth while dwelling on
this, for it is radically wrong. From it inevitably ensue a number of mistaken
conclusions in practical policy. This criticism of peasant utopias harbours a
lack of understanding of the proletariat’s task—to urge the
peasantry on ward to complete victory in the democratic revolution.

Justlook carefully at what is behind the agrarian utopias of the peasantry in
the present revolution. What is their main utopia? Undoubtedly, it is the idea
of equalitarianism, the conviction that the abolition of the private property in
land and the equal division of the land (or of land tenure) are able to destroy
the roots of want, poverty, unemployment and exploitation.

Noone disputes the fact that, from the point of view ofsocialism,
this is a utopia, a utopia of the petty bourgeois. From the point of view of
socialism, this is a reactionary prejudice, for proletarian socialism sees its
ideal, not in the equality of small proprietors, but in large-scale socialised
production. But do not forget that what we are now appraising is the
significance of the peasants’ ideals, not in thesocialist movement, but in the present, bourgeois-democratic revolution. Can we
say that it is utopian or reactionary in thepresentrevolution for all
the land to be taken away from the landlords and be handed over to, or divided
up equally among, the peasants?! No! Not only is this non-reactionary, but, on
the contrary, it reflects most conclusively and most consistently the desire
for the most thorough abolition of the entire old regime, of all the remnants of
serfdom. The idea that “equality” can exist under commodity
production and even serve as a foundation for semi-socialism is utopian. The
peasants’ desire to take the land away from the landlords at once and divide it
up on an equalitarian basis is not utopian, but revolutionary in the fullest,
strictest, scientific meaning of the word. Such confiscation and such division
would lay the foundation for the speediest, broadest and freest development of
capitalism.

Speakingobjectively, from the point of view not of our desires, but of the
present economic development of Russia, the basic question of our revolution is
whether it will secure the development of capitalism through the peasants’
complete victory over the landowners or through the landowners’ victory over the
peasants. A bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia’s economy is
absolutely inevitable. No power on earth can hinder it. But this revolution is
possible in either of two ways: in the Prussian, if one might say so, or in the
American way. This means the following; the land lords may win, may foist
compensation payments or other petty concessions on the peasants, may unite with
a handful of the wealthy, pauperise the masses, and convert their own farms into
Junker-type, capitalist, farms. Such a revolution will be bourgeois-democratic
but it will be to the least advantage of the peasants—to their least
advantage from the angle of the rapidity of capitalist development. Or, on the
contrary, the complete victory of the peasant uprising, the confiscation of all
landed estates and their equal division will signify the most rapid development
of capitalism, the form of bourgeois-democratic revolution most advantageous to
the peasants.

Noris this most advantageous to the peasants alone. It is just as advantageous
to the proletariat. The class conscious proletariat knows that there is, and
there canbe, no path leading to socialism otherwise than through a bourgeois-democratic
      revolution.

Hencethe more incomplete and irresolute this revolution, the longer and the
more heavily will general democratic tasks, and not socialist, not purely
class, proletarian tasks, weigh upon the proletariat. The more complete the
victory of the peasantry, the sooner will the proletariat stand out as a
distinct class, and the more clearly will it put forward its purely socialist
tasks and aims.

Fromthis, you see that the peasants’ ideas on equality, reactionary and utopian
from the standpoint of socialism, are revolutionary from the standpoint of
bourgeois democracy. That is why the equating of the liberals’ reactionary
nature in the present revolution and the reactionary utopianism of the peasants
in their ideas of the socialist revolution is a glaring logical and historical
error. To put on a par the liberals’ endeavours to cut the present revolution
off short at compensation for land, a constitutional monarchy, at the level of
the Cadet agrarian programme, etc., and the peasants’ attempts at utopian
idealisation, in a reactionary spirit, of their endeavours to crush the
landlords immediately, to confiscate all the land, to divide it all up—to
attempt to equate these things is to abandon completely, not only the standpoint
of the proletariat, but also the standpoint of a consistent revolutionary
democrat. To write a resolution on the struggle against liberal opportunism and
muzhik revolutionism in the present revolution is to write a resolution that is
not Social-Democratic. This is not a Social-Democrat writing, but an
intellectual who sits between the liberal and the muzhik in the camp of
bourgeois democracy.

Icannot deal here in as great detail as I should on the famous tactical
platform of the Mensheviks with their much vaunted slogan of struggle against
the “one-sided hostility of the proletariat towards liberalism”. The
non-Marxist and non-proletarian nature of such a slogan is more than obvious.

Inconclusion, I shall deal with a frequent objection that is raised against
us. In the majority of cases, we are told, “your” Trudoviks follow
the Cadets against us. That is true, but it is no objection against our point of
view and our resolution, since we have quite definitely and outspokenly admitted
it.

TheTrudoviks are definitely not fully consistent democrats. The Trudoviks
(including the Socialist-Revolutionaries) undoubtedly vacillate between the
liberals and the revolutionary proletariat. We have said this, and it had to be
said. Such vacillation is by no means fortuitous. It is an inevitable
consequence of the very nature of the economic condition of the small
producer. On the one hand, he is oppressed and subject to exploitation. He is
unconsciously impelled into the fight against this position, into the fight for
democracy, for the ideas of abolishing exploitation. On the other hand, he is apetty proprietor. In the peasant lives the instinct of a
proprietor—if not of today, then of tomorrow. It is the
proprietor’s, the owner’s instinct that repels the peasant from the
proletariat, engendering in him an aspiration to become someone in the world, to
become a bourgeois, to hem himself in against all society on his own plot of
land, on his own dung-heap, as Marx irately

remarked.[2]

Vacillationin the peasantry and the peasant democratic parties is
inevitable. And the Social-Democratic Party, therefore, must not for a moment be
embarrassed at the fear of isolating itself from such vacillation. Every time
the Trudoviks display lack of courage, and drag along in the wake of the
liberals, we must fearlessly and quite firmly oppose the Trudoviks, expose and
castigate their petty-bourgeois inconsistency and flaccidity.

Ourrevolution is passing through difficult times. We need all the will-power,
all the endurance and fortitude of the organised proletarian party, in order to
be capable of resisting sentiments of distrust, despondency, indifference, and
denial of the struggle. The petty bourgeoisie will always and inevitably succumb
most easily to such sentiments, display irresolution, betray the revolutionary
path, whine and repent. And in all such cases, the workers’ party will isolate
itself from the vacillating petty-bourgeois democrats. In all such cases we must
be able to unmask the irresolute democrats openly, even from the Duma
platform. “Peasants!” we must say in the Duma in such circumstances,
“peasants! You should know that your representatives are betraying you by
following in the wake of the liberal landlords. Your Duma deputies are betraying
the cause of the peasantry tothe liberal windbags and advocates.” Let the peasants know— we must
      demonstrate this to them by facts—thatonlythe workers’
    party is the genuinely reliable and thoroughly faithful defender of the
    interests, not only of socialism but also of democracy, not only of all
    working and exploited people, but also of the entire peasant masses, who are
    fighting against feudal exploitation.

Ifwe pursue this policy persistently and undeviatingly, we shall derive from
our revolution enormous material for the class development of the proletariat;
we shall achieve this under all circumstances, whatever vicissitudes may be in
store for us, whatever setbacks for the revolution (under particularly
unfavourable circumstances) may fall to our lot. A firm proletarian policy will
give the entire working class such a wealth of ideas, such clarity of
understanding and such endurance in the struggle that no one on earth will be
able to win them away from Social-Democracy. Even if the revolution suffers
defeat, the proletariat will learn, first and foremost, to understand the
economic class foundations of both the liberal and the democratic parties; then
it will learn to hate the bourgeoisie’s treacheries and to despise the
petty bourgeoisie’s infirmity of purpose and its vacillations.

Andit is only with such a fund of knowledge, with such habits of thinking, that
the proletariat will be able to approach the new, the socialist revolution more
unitedly and more boldly. (Applause from the Bolsheviks and the Centre.)

[1]Lenin deals in detail with the resolution of the Caucasian
Mensheviks in his “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic
Revolution” (see present edition, Vol. 9, pp. 92-104).

[2]Marx-Engels,Beschlüsse gegen Hermann Kriege, den Redacteur des
“Volkstribun”, MEGA, Bd. V, S. 10.